Appendix 1-2 EIA Scoping Opinion Preliminary Response · Regulation 6(2)(a) of the EIA Regulations, the Proposed Development is EIA development. No response required. 1.1.5 General

Future LuToN: Making best use of our runway

Preliminary Environmental Information Report Volume 3: Appendices

LLADCO-3B-ARP-00-00-RP-YE-0007 | Issue 1 | October 2019

Appendix 1-2 EIA Scoping Opinion Preliminary Response

Future LuToN: Making best use of our runway Appendix 1-2

Preliminary Scoping Opinion Responses

Preliminary Environmental Information Report

Volume 3: Appendices

Scoping ID Theme Scoping Opinion Comment How/where addressed in the PEIR or ES

1.1.1 General On 29 March 2019, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on behalf of

the Secretary of State (SoS) received a scoping request from London Luton

Airport Limited (LLAL) (the Applicant) under Regulation 10 of the

Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations

2017 (the EIA Regulations) for the proposed Expansion of London Luton

Airport (the Proposed Development).

No response required.

1.1.2 General In accordance with Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations, an Applicant may

ask the SoS to state in writing its opinion ’as to the scope, and level of detail,

of the information to be provided in the environmental statement’.


1.1.3 General This document is the Scoping Opinion (the Opinion) provided by the

Inspectorate on behalf of the SoS in respect of the Proposed Development.

It is made on the basis of the information provided in the Applicant’s report

entitled ‘Future LuToN: Making best use of our runway - Environmental

Impact Assessment Scoping Report’ (the Scoping Report) and dated March

2019. This Opinion can only reflect the proposals as currently described by

the Applicant. The Scoping Opinion should be read in conjunction with the

Applicant’s Scoping Report.


1.1.4 General The Applicant has notified the SoS under Regulation 8(1)(b) of the EIA

Regulations that they propose to provide an Environmental Statement (ES)

in respect of the Proposed Development. Therefore, in accordance with

Regulation 6(2)(a) of the EIA Regulations, the Proposed Development is EIA

development.


1.1.5 General Regulation 10(9) of the EIA Regulations requires that before adopting a

scoping opinion the Inspectorate must take into account:

(a) any information provided about the proposed development;

(b) the specific characteristics of the development;

(c) the likely significant effects of the development on the environment; and

(d) in the case of a subsequent application, the environmental statement

submitted with the original application.


Page 1 of 24






1.1.6 General This Opinion has taken into account the requirements of the EIA Regulations

as well as current best practice towards preparation of an ES.


1.1.7 General The Inspectorate has consulted on the Applicant’s Scoping Report and the

responses received from the consultation bodies have been taken into

account in adopting this Opinion (see Appendix 2).


1.1.8 General The points addressed by the Applicant in the Scoping Report have been

carefully considered and use has been made of professional judgement and

experience in order to adopt this Opinion. It should be noted that when it

comes to consider the ES, the Inspectorate will take account of relevant

legislation and guidelines. The Inspectorate will not be precluded from

requiring additional information if it is considered necessary in connection

with the ES submitted with the application for a Development Consent Order

(DCO).


1.1.9 General This Opinion should not be construed as implying that the Inspectorate

agrees with the information or comments provided by the Applicant in their

request for an opinion from the Inspectorate. In particular, comments from

the Inspectorate in this Opinion are without prejudice to any later decisions

taken (eg on submission of the application) that any development identified

by the Applicant is necessarily to be treated as part of a Nationally Significant

Infrastructure Project (NSIP) or Associated Development or development

that does not require development consent.


1.1.10 General Regulation 10(3) of the EIA Regulations states that a request for a scoping

opinion must include:

(a) a plan sufficient to identify the land;

(b) a description of the proposed development, including its location and

technical capacity;

(c) an explanation of the likely significant effects of the development on the

environment; and

(d) such other information or representations as the person making the

request may wish to provide or make.


Page 2 of 24






1.1.11 General The Inspectorate considers that this has been provided in the Applicant’s

Scoping Report. The Inspectorate is satisfied that the Scoping Report

encompasses the relevant aspects identified in the EIA Regulations.


1.1.12 General In accordance with Regulation 14(3)(a), where a scoping opinion has been

issued in accordance with Regulation 10 an ES accompanying an application

for an order granting development consent should be based on ‘the most

recent scoping opinion adopted (so far as the proposed development

remains materially the same as the proposed development which was

subject to that opinion)’.


1.1.13 HRA The Inspectorate notes the submission of a Habitats Regulations

Assessment (HRA) Screening Report appended to the Scoping Report

(Appendix C) and the potential need to carry out an assessment under

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats

Regulations). This assessment must be co-ordinated with the EIA in

accordance with Regulation 26 of the EIA Regulations. The Applicant’s ES

should therefore be co-ordinated with any assessment made under the

Habitats Regulations.

A HRA screening assessment has been undertaken as

part of the scoping exercise and determined that there

are no likely significant effects on Natura 2000 sites as a

result of the Proposed Development and therefore, an

appropriate assessment is not required under the

Habitats Regulations. The results of this screening were

presented in the Scoping Report (Appendix 1-1 Volume

3 of this PEIR). An updated screening assessment will

be presented in the ES.

1.2.1 General In accordance with Regulation 10(6) of the EIA Regulations the Inspectorate

has consulted the consultation bodies before adopting a scoping opinion. A

list of the consultation bodies formally consulted by the Inspectorate is

provided at Appendix 1. The consultation bodies have been notified under

Regulation 11(1)(a) of the duty imposed on them by Regulation 11(3) of the

EIA Regulations to make information available to the Applicant relevant to

the preparation of the ES. The Applicant should note that whilst the list can

inform their consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.


1.2.2 General The list of respondents who replied within the statutory timeframe and whose

comments have been taken into account in the preparation of this Opinion is

provided, along with copies of their comments, at Appendix 2, to which the

Applicant should refer in preparing their ES.


Page 3 of 24






1.2.3 General The ES submitted by the Applicant should demonstrate consideration of the

points raised by the consultation bodies. It is recommended that a table is

provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the consultation

bodies and how they are, or are not, addressed in the ES.

A full Scoping Opinion response will be provided in the

ES. The PEIR addresses comments from the Planning

Inspectorate, which have taken into account responses

received from conultation bodies, in this Appendix 1-2

and topic chapters (Chapter 5 to 20).

1.2.4 General Any consultation responses received after the statutory deadline for receipt

of comments will not be taken into account within this Opinion. Late

responses will be forwarded to the Applicant and will be made available on

the Inspectorate’s website. The Applicant should also give due consideration

to those comments in preparing their ES.


1.3.1 General On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) held a referendum and voted to

leave the European Union (EU). On 29 March 2017 the Prime Minister

triggered Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which commenced a

period of negotiations regarding the UK’s exit from the EU. On 26 June 2018

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 received Royal Assent and work

to prepare the UK statute book for Brexit has begun. The European Union

(Withdrawal) Act 2018 will make sure that UK laws continue to operate

following the UK’s exit. There is no immediate change to legislation or policy

affecting national infrastructure. Relevant EU Directives have been

transposed into UK law and those are unchanged until amended by

Parliament.


2.0.1 General The following is a summary of the information on the Proposed Development

and its site and surroundings prepared by the Applicant and included in their

Scoping Report. The information has not been verified and it has been

assumed that the information provided reflects the existing knowledge of the

Proposed Development and the potential receptors/ resources.


2.1.1 General The Applicant’s description of the Proposed Development, its location and

technical capacity (where relevant) is provided in Chapter 3 of the Scoping

Report and in the associated figures and appendices.


Page 4 of 24






2.1.2 General The Proposed Development involves the remodelling and expansion of the

existing London Luton Airport (the Airport) to enable an increase in operating

capacity from 140,000 air transport movements (ATM) per annum to

approximately 212,500 ATM per annum, and from around 18 million

passengers per annum (mppa) to 32 mppa. The Scoping Report states that

the Proposed Development is defined as a Nationally Significant

Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the terms of section 23 of the PA2008.

London Luton Airport is currently operated under concession by London

Luton Airport Operations Ltd (LLAOL) with its current planning permission for

a capacity of 18mppa. This agreement is in place until 2031.


2.1.3 Site location/

Description

The Proposed Development is to be located at the existing site of the Airport

and in the surrounding area, approximately 45km north west of London as

shown on Figure 2.1 of the Scoping Report. The Scoping Report

acknowledges that that uncertainty remains regarding the exact location and

design of certain elements of the Proposed Development, but that the key

known components of the Proposed Development will be located ‘in the

zones or envelopes indicated in Figure 3.1’ of the Scoping Report. These

also being referred to as the following three key aspects/locations: ‘Main

Application Site’; ‘Off-site Car Parks’; and ‘Off-site Highway Interventions’.

The assessment methodologies have been prepared based on the

infrastructure being located within these zones/aspects/locations.


2.1.4 The Main Application Site encompasses approximately 360 hectares (ha)

and includes Wigmore Valley Park. It lies approximately 4km from Junction

10 of the M1 motorway, with residential development to the north, mixed

residential and industrial development to the west, and rural arable fields to

the east and south. A closed historical landfill is located in the north of the

Main Application Site, over which the Proposed Development will be built.

Luton town centre is located approximately 2.5km to the west of the Airport.


Page 5 of 24






2.1.5 As shown in Figure 2.2 of the Scoping Report, the Airport currently

comprises a single runway with associated taxiways, stands and aprons. It

has a single commercial passenger terminal with supporting hangars,

maintenance facilities and airport related offices along with a number of car

parks.


2.1.6 The key components of the Proposed Development include:

• creation of an airfield platform: earthworks from on-site excavation;

• new terminal with boarding piers;

• additional taxiways and aprons (aircraft stands);

• vehicle forecourt and multi-storey short stay/mid-stay car parking adjacent

to the terminal. Additional mid and long stay surface parking, including

replacement where the existing facilities are disturbed;

• airfield facilities: Relocated engine run-up bay, compass swing bay and de-

icing area, and fire training facilities;

• landside facilities: Airport associated support buildings such as snow base,

energy centre, logistics centre and service yard, and new fuel line connection

and storage facilities;

• surface access: Road and infrastructure provision and adjustments. Bus

station, taxi ranks and extension of Luton Direct Air to Rail (DART) system to

the new terminal;

• surface water and foul management, including drainage, interceptors,

surface water attenuation and treatment, foul water collection and treatment,

effluent storage and discharge to ground; and

• landscaping: Improvement or replacement of existing and planned public

open space and amenities.


Page 6 of 24






2.2.1 Scope of ES The ES should include the following:

• a description of the Proposed Development comprising at least the

information on the site, design, size and other relevant features of the

development; and

• a description of the location of the development and description of the

physical characteristics of the whole development, including any requisite

demolition works and the land-use requirements during construction and

operation phases

A description of the Proposed Development, its location,

and its physical characteristics are provided in Chapter

2 The Proposed Development of Volume 1 of this

PEIR. Final descriptions will be provided in the ES.

2.2.2 Scope of ES Due to the ongoing nature of the design development, the Scoping Report

lacks specific information on the characteristics of elements to the Proposed

Development e.g. dimensions, locations or final elevations of various

structures to include the form and location of the terminal building, the

forecourt configuration, the final number of parking spaces, the height of the

new fuel farm and the precise range of ground handling and vehicle holding

facilities. It does not provide information on the proposed landside facilities,

including the proposed ‘energy centre’, ‘snow base’, ‘logistics centre and

service yard’ and ‘storage facilities’.





2.2.3 General The Inspectorate acknowledges that at this point in the evolution of the

Proposed Development a final description may not yet be confirmed, and

that there are currently different options for certain works. However, the

Applicant should be aware that the description of the Proposed Development

provided in the ES must be sufficiently certain to meet the requirements of

the EIA Regulations. The ES must include a detailed description of all

components of the Proposed Development and should include reference to

the location, alignments and dimensions of each individual element,

including maximum heights, design parameters and limits of deviation.

Where appropriate this information should be accompanied by figures to

assist the reader.





2.2.4 Footprints and

heights

With respect to buildings, the description of the development should be

defined in terms of their maximum footprints and maximum heights should

be expressed as metres Above Ordnance Datum (m AOD). Proposed

increases and decreases in ground levels should also be expressed in terms

of m AOD.





Page 7 of 24






2.2.5 Extent of site

Figures

In describing the Proposed Development and the scope of the assessments,

the Scoping Report refers to three key aspects/locations: the ‘Main

Application Site’; ‘Off-site Car Parks’; and ‘Off-site Highway Interventions’.

However, the precise extent of each of these areas, particularly the extent of

the ‘Main Application Site’, is not clear from the plans provided. Figure 2.1 to

the Scoping Report shows each of these areas using the same red line,

making it difficult to distinguish each area. The ES should clearly describe

the Proposed Development and ensure that textual description is supported

by clear and legible plans to aid the reader.

Figure 2-2 in Volume 2 of this PEIR provides a

clarification of the key Proposed Development areas.

The ES will include a clear description of the Proposed

Development supported by clear legible plans.

2.2.6 General The Scoping Report states that the Off-site Highway Interventions will be

largely within the existing highway boundary. However, there is ongoing

uncertainty with regards to the precise location, nature and extent of the

Offsite Highways Interventions. The Scoping Report proposes to scope out

matters from a number of aspect chapters on this basis. The lack of certainty

affects the understanding of the current baseline and the extent to which

likely significant effect would occur. The ES should provide detailed

information on the Off-Site Highways Intervention areas, supported by clear

and legible plans and figures.

A description and the locations of the Off-site Highways

Interventions are provided in Section 2.5 of Volume 1 of

this PEIR and Figure 2-1 of Volume 2. Final descriptions

will be provided in the ES.

2.2.7 General The Scoping Report refers to both ‘ancillary aviation supporting facilities’ and

‘ancillary buildings’ in the description of development. The Applicant should

clearly define in the draft DCO (dDCO) which elements of the Proposed

Development are integral to the NSIP and which are ancillary matters. Any

proposed works and or infrastructure identified as ancillary to the Proposed

Development should be assessed as part of an integrated approach to the

environmental assessment.

The PEIR identifies facilities and principal assets

indicating their functions in Chapter 2 The Proposed

Development (Volume 1 of this PERI). Final

descriptions will be provided in the ES, included in the

draft DCO.

Page 8 of 24






2.2.8 Relationship with

other

developments

Section 2.4 of the Scoping Report refers to a number of airport related

developments that are currently approved and under construction, or

currently under consideration by the local planning authority including:

Project Curium;

Luton DART; the reuse and placement of soil from Project Curium and Luton

DART; and the Enterprise Zone development to include Bartlett Square and

New Century Park. The description of development in the ES should explain

the relationship between the Proposed Development and other

developments. The ES description should be clear in stating which works

have been assessed and whether they form part of the DCO application.

Where these works are not to be included in the DCO application, the ES

should ensure that they are adequately assessed in the cumulative effects

assessment where significant effects are likely.

A description of airport related developments which are

currently approved and/or under construction is provided

in Section 2.4 Existing airport related developments

Volume 1 of the PEIR.

Where appropriate, these developments have been

included in the Cumulative Effects Assessment, as

described in Chapter 20 In-combination and

cumulative effects of Volume 1 of the PEIR.

Final descriptions will be provided in the ES.

The Proposed Development is described in Section 2.5

Description of the Proposed Development of Volume

1 of the PEIR.

2.2.9 Public

infrastructure

linkages

The Scoping Report references public transport infrastructure to access the

airport such as the Luton DART. The ES should take account of any

potential overlap between the expansion proposal and proposed public

transport infrastructure links, detailing the outcome of relevant consultations

with Network Rail.

Luton DART is a committed project that is under

construction and therefore forms part of the future

baseline.

As part of the Proposed Development, the DART will be

extended to Terminal 2 as described in Section 2.5 of

Volume 1 of the PEIR.

Presently, no other relevant proposed public transport

infrastructure links in the vicinity of the airport are being

considered.

Page 9 of 24






2.2.10 Road closure and

diversion

Road closures and diversions are referenced at Sections 14.5.10 and 15.6.3

of the Scoping Report but limited information has been provided in respect of

these. The ES should contain a full explanation of such closures and

diversions, including whether they are temporary or permanent, and

associated impacts should be fully assessed. This information should also

be depicted on figures in the ES to provide further clarity.

Some local routes will be particularly affected during the

construction of the CPAR Phase 2 and the New

Wigmore Valley Park works with some roads temporarily

closed and others having temporary diversions, traffic

lights and/or lane restrictions. The Draft Code of

Construction Practice (CoCP) contained within

Appendix 2-1 Volume 2 of this PEIR provides

preliminary details of management measures, such as

advance warning to, enable affected parties to consider

alternative routes or travel arrangements.

Further details will be provide in the ES.

2.2.11 Utility diversions Section 3.6.6 of the Scoping Report also refers to the ‘installation of new

drainage and diversions and disconnections’. Limited information is provided

in respect of these works. The ES should contain a full explanation of such

diversions and disconnections, including whether they are temporary or

permanent, and any associated significant effects should be fully assessed.

Changes to drainage infrastructure will be defined in

appropriate engineering documents accompanying the

DCO application, and any associated significant effects

will the assessed and described in the final ES.

2.2.12 Material quantities Table 13.6 of the Scoping Report outlines the material resources required

for, and the waste to be generated by, the Proposed Development but does

not provide any indication of likely quantities. This should be clearly set out in

the ES. The nature and volume of materials should also be included in the

description of the Proposed Development, including justification of any key

assumptions made. It is also noted that the Scoping Report refers to five

sites for the disposal of spoil; however, Figure 2.3 only shows four. This

should be clarified in the ES and clearly shown on accompanying figures.

Please refer to Chapter 10 Soils and Geology and

Chapter 12 Waste and Resources of Volume 1 of this

PEIR for further details regarding nature and volume of

materials required for the Proposed Development.

Further available details will be provided in the ES.

Page 10 of 24






2.2.13 Capacity The Inspectorate notes that Table 3-2 states that the existing terminal

capacity is set to increase from 18mppa to 21mppa in 2022. However,

Section 7.6.6 of the Scoping Report states that this increase is not due to

take place until 2024. Furthermore, Table 3-2 then shows a reduction in the

capacity of the existing terminal from 21mppa to 18mppa in 2027, but has

not provided an explanation for this. The Applicant should ensure that the

finalised phases of the Proposed Development, the expected capacity of

both the existing and new terminals, and the activities to be undertaken in

each phase, are clearly explained in the ES and consistently reflected in the

aspect assessments. Where uncertainty exists and flexibility is required the

assessment should be based on worst case assumptions, particularly in

respect of the duration of construction phases. The ES should assess the

potential significant effects from construction activities occurring in

conjunction with the operational activities of the Airport.

An explanation of the projected phasing of the Proposed

Development is provided in Section 2.6 Phasing and

Construction in Volume 1 of this PEIR.

2.2.14 Demolition The Scoping Report makes various references to ‘demolition activities’ but

does not provide any in-depth description of what these activities involve. As

part of the description of physical characteristics of the Proposed

Development, the ES should provide full details of the proposed demolition

works and it should be clear at what point in the construction programme the

demolition activities would occur. The Applicant should ensure that the ES

aspect chapters assess the likely significant effects resulting from demolition

activities taking into account their extent and duration.

A description of the demolition activities is provided in

Section 2.5 of Volume 1 of the PEIR. Further

information can be found in the Scheme Development

and Construction Report available as part of the

Statutory Consultation documentation.

Final details will be provided in the ES and other

supporting documents of the DCO application.

Page 11 of 24






2.2.15 Construction

options

Limited further information is provided on construction options. It is explained

in Section 3.3.28 of the Scoping Report that an environmental appraisal of

the key reasonable construction options for the Proposed Development will

be undertaken as the design develops. The Applicant should ensure that the

ES provides specific information on which construction activities are to take

place in the different areas of the Proposed Development site and should

explain the length of time that each activity shall last. Information should also

be provided on the number, size and location of any construction

compounds, and the potential significant effects from the use of construction

compounds should be taken into consideration for each relevant aspect

assessment.

Details of design evolution and construction options will

be provided within Scheme Development and

Construction Report accompanying the DCO application.

Section 2.6 of Volume 1 of the PEIR provides an outline

description of projected phasing and construction.

Details of the construction phasing and siting in the

Proposed Development site will be finalised and

provided in the ES.

2.2.16 Construction In addition to the above, the ES should also include a description of the

anticipated:

• Construction methods and activities associated with each phase of

construction;

• Numbers of workers and the hours of working;

• Types of plant and machinery;

• Lighting equipment/ requirements, in particular any lighting at construction

compounds;

• Number, type, movements and parking of construction vehicles (both

heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and staff vehicles);

• Noise; and

• The draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) referred to in section 3.6.8

of the Scoping Report (see also comments in Section 3.2 of this Opinion).

Preliminary details of the construction methods and

activities are provided in Section 2.6 of Volume 1 of the

PEIR of the PEIR. A Draft CoCP with preliminary details

is also available in Appendix 2-1 of Volume 3 of the

PEIR. Final anticipated methods and activities will be

provided in the ES.

2.2.17 Alternatives The EIA Regulations require that the Applicant provide ‘A description of the

reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design,

technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are

relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an

indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a

comparison of the environmental effects’.


Page 12 of 24






2.2.18 Alternatives The Inspectorate acknowledges the Applicant’s intention to consider

alternatives within the ES. The Inspectorate would expect to see a discrete

section in the ES that provides details of the reasonable alternatives studied

and the reasoning for the selection of the chosen option(s), including a

comparison of the environmental effects

A preliminary description of reasonable alternatives

considered to date has been provided in Chapter 3

Assessment of Alternatives of Volume 1 of the PEIR.

Any further design evolution will be described in the ES.

2.2.19 Flexibility The Inspectorate notes the Applicant’s desire to incorporate flexibility into

their dDCO and its intention to apply a Rochdale Envelope approach for this

purpose. Where the details of the Proposed Development cannot be defined

precisely, the Applicant will apply a worst case scenario. The Inspectorate

welcomes the reference to Planning Inspectorate Advice Note nine ‘Using

the ‘Rochdale Envelope’’ in this regard.


2.2.20 Flexibility The Applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and

explain clearly in the ES which elements of the Proposed Development have

yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. At the time of application, any

Proposed Development parameters should not be so wide-ranging as to

represent effectively different developments. The development parameters

will need to be clearly defined in the dDCO and in the accompanying ES. It is

a matter for the Applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is

possible to robustly assess a range of impacts resulting from a large number

of undecided parameters. The description of the Proposed Development in

the ES must not be so wide that it is insufficiently certain to comply with the

requirements of Regulation 14 of the EIA Regulations.

Chapter 2 The Proposed Development, Section 2.5 of

Volume 1 of the PEIR provides greater detail of the

present proposals and the maximum parameters upon

which the EIA is based. Sufficient detail will be provided

in the ES to comply with the requirements of Regulation

14 of the EIA Regulations.

2.2.21 Flexibility It should be noted that if the Proposed Development materially changes prior

to submission of the DCO application, the Applicant may wish to consider

requesting a new scoping opinion.


Page 13 of 24






2.2.22 Airspace Change

Process

Paragraph 5.3.12 and Section 5.5 explain that air space is being redesigned

across the South East of England as a separate process outside of the

Proposed Development and separate to the DCO process. This programme

is referred to as the ‘Future Airspace Strategy Implementation (FASI) South’

and is being led by the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) under the

supervision of the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority

(CAA). Any air space change needs to follow the process outlined in the

CAA’s Civil Aviation Publication 1616 (CAP 1616). It is a collaborative

process involving all London airports and in respect of Luton, London Luton

Airport Operations Ltd (LLAOL), as the aerodrome licence holder, will be

developing the proposal to fit with FASI South implementation, which is

targeted at 2026. The Scoping Report confirms that LLAOL will be

developing their proposals to fit with the FASI South implementation, in

parallel to the DCO process and working in collaboration with the Applicant,

subject to a programme outside of the control of the Applicant.



Process

Paragraph 5.5.4 states the ‘timescale for this exercise means that confirmed

flight paths will not be available for consideration in the assessment for this

DCO application as they will not be available within the project programme.

Therefore, the assessment in the ES will be based on existing flight path

designs.’ The Scoping Report also states that ‘should emerging flight path

designs become available within a timeframe suitable to be included in the

DCO application, consideration will be given to their inclusion in the

assessment as a sensitivity test to illustrate potential environmental

improvements that may be achievable as a result of the broader airspace

redesign being undertaken by NATS.’


Page 14 of 24







Process

The Inspectorate notes the intention to produce the ES based on current

flight paths and not those associated with the air space change on the basis

that these may not be available and/or may only be developing not final flight

paths, but that should they become available, consideration will be given to

their inclusion through sensitivity testing. The Inspectorate understands the

relationship between the Proposed Development and the future air space

change process, which may not run in parallel. However, the Inspectorate

considers that the ES methodology should be compatible with the

methodological approaches outlined in the CAA’s CAP 1616 and CAP 1616a

documents to ensure consistency and continuity between the two

assessment processes. Where the ES methodology is not consistent with

the CAA’s CAP approach, this should be identified and explained.

Please refer to Chapter 2 The Proposed Development

Section 2.5 Description of the Proposed

Development and Chapter 4 Environmental

Assessment Methodology Section 4.8 Air Space

Change for an explanation of the consideration of CAP

1616 and CAP 1616a within the EIA.

3.0.1 General This section contains the Inspectorate’s specific comments on the scope

and level of detail of information to be provided in the Applicant’s ES.

General advice on the presentation of an ES is provided in the Inspectorate’s

Advice Note Seven ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: Process,

Preliminary Environmental Information and Environmental Statements’1 and

associated appendices.


3.0.2 General Aspects/ matters (as defined in Advice Note Seven) are not scoped out

unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant and confirmed as

being scoped out by the Inspectorate. The ES should be based on the

Scoping Opinion in so far as the Proposed Development remains materially

the same as the Proposed Development described in the Applicant’s

Scoping Report.


Page 15 of 24






3.0.3 General The Inspectorate has set out in this Opinion where it has/ has not agreed to

scope out certain aspects/ matters on the basis of the information available

at this time. The Inspectorate is content that the receipt of a Scoping Opinion

should not prevent the Applicant from subsequently agreeing with the

relevant consultation bodies to scope such aspects/ matters out of the ES,

where further evidence has been provided to justify this approach. However,

in order to demonstrate that the aspects/ matters have been appropriately

addressed, the ES should explain the reasoning for scoping them out and

justify the approach taken.


3.0.4 Securing

mitigation

Where relevant, the ES should provide reference to how the delivery of

measures proposed to prevent/ minimise adverse effects is secured through

DCO requirements (or other suitably robust methods) and whether relevant

consultation bodies agree on the adequacy of the measures proposed.

References to preliminary mitigation measures are

provided in the topic chapters and summarised in

Chapter 21 Summary of Effects of Volume 1 of the

PEIR which will be finalised within the ES to include

details of mechanisms to secure their implementation.

3.1.1 NPS Sector-specific NPSs are produced by the relevant Government

Departments and set out national policy for NSIPs. They provide the

framework within which the Examining Authority (ExA) will make their

recommendation to the SoS and include the Government’s objectives for the

development of NSIPs. The NPSs may include environmental requirements

for NSIPs, which Applicants should address within their ES.

The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) does not

meet criteria (a) of Section 104(2) of the Planning Act

and will not “have effect” in relation to the Proposed

Development at LTN. It will however be an important and

relevant consideration in the determination of a DCO

application for LTN. A summary of the ANPS policies of

relevance to specific environmental topics have been

provided in the relevant topic chapters of the EIA

Scoping Report with further detail provided in topic

chapters (Chapters 5 to 19) of Volume 1 of this PEIR.

Page 16 of 24






3.1.2 NPS The designated NPS relevant to the Proposed Development is the Airports

National Policy Statement (ANPS). The Scoping Report states that nature

and extent of works that may be required at or near Junction 10 of the M1,

as part of the Proposed Development, or implemented by the Applicant

during the development programme for the Proposed Development, is not

yet fully known. However, the Scoping Report further states that should the

NPS for National Networks found relevant to the Proposed Development, it

will be taken into consideration.

The Off-site Highways Interventions proposed for the

Proposed Development, especially M1 J10, do not

constitute NSIPs as defined by Section 22 of the

Planning Act 2008. Therefore, the NPS for National

Networks does not have effect in relation to the

Proposed Development.

3.2.1 General

HRA

The Inspectorate recommends that in order to assist the decision-making

process, the Applicant uses tables:

• to demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this Opinion;

• to identify and collate the residual effects after mitigation for each of the

aspect chapters, including the relevant interrelationships and cumulative

effects;

• to set out the proposed mitigation and/ or monitoring measures including

cross-reference to the means of securing such measures (e.g. a dDCO

requirement);

• to describe any remedial measures that are identified as being necessary

following monitoring; and

• to identify where details are contained in the Habitats Regulations

Assessment (HRA report) (where relevant), such as descriptions of

European sites and their locations, together with any mitigation or

compensation measures, are to be found in the ES.

The information recommended will be included within

the ES.

Page 17 of 24






3.2.2 Associated

Development

The Inspectorate considers that where a DCO application includes works

described as ‘Associated Development’, that could themselves be defined as

an improvement of a highway, the Applicant should ensure that the ES

accompanying that application distinguishes between; effects that primarily

derive from the integral works which form the proposed (or part of the

proposed) NSIP and those that primarily derive from the works described as

Associated Development. This could be presented in a suitably compiled

summary table. This will have the benefit of giving greater confidence to the

Inspectorate that what is proposed is not in fact an additional NSIP defined in

accordance with s22 of the PA2008.

There are no proposed "associated developments" that

constitute improvement of a highway as defined in

accordance with Section 22 of the Planning Act 2008.

Works described in Chapter 2 The Proposed

Development define the extent of the Proposed

Development.

3.2.3 Off-site works As identified in Section 2 above, the Scoping Report does not provide

detailed information about the proposed Off-site Highway Interventions to

inform the description of likely significant effects. The ES should assess the

likely significant effects which could arise from the Proposed Development

as a whole, including any off-site works.

A description of the proposed Off-site Highways

Interventions is provided in Chapter 2 The Proposed

Development, Section 2.5 of Volume 1 of the PEIR and

will be included within the ES.

3.2.4 Baseline The ES should include a description of the baseline scenario with and

without implementation of the development as far as natural changes from

the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort on the basis of

the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge.

Preliminary baseline scenarios with and without the

Proposed Development have been defined in Chapter 4

Environmental Assessment Methodology or within

topic chapters (Chapter 5 to 19) of Volume 1 of this

PEIR. Final definitions will be provided within the ES.

3.2.5 Forecasting

Methods or

Evidence

The ES should contain the timescales upon which the surveys which

underpin the technical assessments have been based. For clarity, this

information should be provided either in the introductory chapters of the ES

(with confirmation that these timescales apply to all chapters), or in each

aspect chapter.

Details of the timescales upon which surveys have been

undertaken are included in the topic specific chapters

(Chapter 5 to 19) of Volume 1 of the PEIR and will be

included in the ES.

3.2.6 Forecasting

Methods or

Evidence

The Inspectorate expects the ES to include a chapter setting out the

overarching methodology for the assessment, which clearly distinguishes

effects that are 'significant' from 'non-significant' effects. Any departure from

that methodology should be described in individual aspect assessment

chapters.

Chapter 4 Environmental Assessment Methodology

of Volume 1 of the PEIR sets out the overarching

methodology for the assessment. Individual

methodologies are defined in topic specific chapters

(Chapter 5 to 20). Full methodologies will be included in

the ES.

Page 18 of 24






3.2.7 Forecasting

Methods or

Evidence

Given the scale of the development, temporary construction impacts may be

of considerable duration. The ES should define the timescale of impacts

defined as ‘temporary’ and consider how the duration of particular

construction activities will influence the magnitude of the impacts identified. It

will also be important to consider how the time period of impacts and

resulting effects may be extended due to cumulative effects.

Individual methodologies are defined in topic specific

chapters of the PEIR (Chapter 5 to 19). Full

methodologies will be included in the ES.

3.2.8 Forecasting

Methods or

Evidence

The Scoping Report refers to the use of professional judgement for various

matters within the aspect chapters. The application of professional

judgement used within the assessment should be clearly identified and fully

justified in the ES.

A full list of the competent experts who have contributed

to the EIA and their professional experience will be

provided within the ES. Full justifications for application

of professional judgements will be included in the ES.

3.2.9 Forecasting

Methods or

Evidence

The ES should include details of difficulties (for example technical

deficiencies or lack of knowledge) encountered compiling the required

information and the main uncertainties involved.

Assumption and limitations to assessments to date have

been defined in topic chapters (Chapter 5 to 20) of

Volume 1 of the PEIR and will be defined within the ES.

3.2.10 Residues and

emissions

The EIA Regulations require an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected

residues and emissions. Specific reference should be made to water, air, soil

and subsoil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation and quantities and

types of waste produced during the construction and operation phases,

where relevant. This information should be provided in a clear and consistent

fashion and may be integrated into the relevant aspect assessments.

An estimate of expected residues and emissions by type

and quantity will be provided within topic assessments of

the ES. Preliminary findings have been provided in

Chapters 5 to 20 of Volume 1 of the PEIR.

3.2.11 Residues and

emissions

The Inspectorate notes the intention to produce a standalone lighting

assessment; however, it is not clear from the Scoping Report where the

lighting assessment will be located within the ES. The lighting assessment

should be clearly signposted from the relevant aspect chapters in the ES,

including (but not limited to) the Biodiversity, Landscape and Visual, and

Cultural Heritage aspect chapters. Specific comments with respect to lighting

are provided in Tables 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14 of this Opinion.

A lighting assessment has been undertaken as part of

the EIA and has informed topic assessments. A

preliminary Lighting Assessment is available in

Appendix 4-2 Volume 2 of this PEIR. Clear cross

references have been included in topic chapters

Chapter 16 Biodiversity, Chapter 17 Landscape and

Visual and Chapter 18 Cultural Heritage of Volume 1

of this PEIR and will be provided in the ES.

Page 19 of 24






3.2.12 Mitigation Any mitigation relied upon for the purposes of the assessment should be

explained in detail within the ES. The likely efficacy of the mitigation

proposed should be explained with reference to residual effects. The ES

should also address how any mitigation proposed is secured, with reference

to specific DCO requirements or other legally binding agreements. The

Inspectorate advises that the approach to mitigation in the ES should follow

the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation, and finally compensation.

Mitigation measures and residual effects identified as

part of the EIA have been included in topic chapters

Chapters 5 to 20 of Volume 1 of the PEIR a summary

of which has been provided in Chapter 21 Summary of

Effects. These will be finalised to be included in the ES.

3.2.13 Mitigation The Inspectorate notes that a draft CoCP is to be submitted as part of the

DCO application, which will include draft plans such as the following:

Construction Environmental Management Plan; Site Waste Management

Plan; Construction Traffic Management Plan; Materials Management Plan;

Soils Management Plan (SMP); Construction Noise Management Plan; Air

Quality Management Plan; and Surface Water Management Plan. Where

the ES relies upon mitigation measures which would be secured through

management plans, it should be demonstrated (with clear cross referencing)

where each measure is set out in the management plan. Paragraph 17.8.2

of the Scoping Report also states the intention to submit a Landscape and

Biodiversity Management Plan. The Applicant should provide draft copies of

these documents appended to the ES and/or demonstrate how they will be

secured.

A Draft CoCP is available in Appendix 2-1 of Volume 2

of this PEIR and contains details of construction

management measures.

Final management plans will be prepared and submitted

with the ES as part of the DCO application.

Page 20 of 24






3.2.14 Decommissioning The Scoping Report proposes that decommissioning impacts are to be

scoped out of the ES for two specific aspect chapters: Chapter 8 Climate

Change and Chapter 9 Greenhouse Gas. Paragraph 5.2.5 also states that

the assessment of potentially significant effects arising from the

decommissioning of the Proposed Development is proposed to be scoped

out of the ES. The Inspectorate therefore infers that the Applicant intends to

scope out decommissioning impacts from the ES entirely. Having regard to

the nature and characteristics of the Proposed Development the

Inspectorate agrees that decommissioning can be scoped out of the ES. The

Inspectorate does however, advise that the ES includes details of any

infrastructure elements predicted to be decommissioned over a shorter time

period and give consideration to the potential for likely significant effects to

arise in relation to these elements.

It is considered that the airport, once operational, will be

a permanently functional airport, and that the site will not

be undertaking activities that pose a long-term risk

requiring detailed decommissioning plans or

assessment. There are no foreseen elements of the

airport which will become redundant during the lifespan

of the Proposed Development.

Any shorter timescale decommissioning identified will be

appropriately described and considered in the ES.

Future decommissioning which arises after the consent

of the Proposed Development will be subject to

appropriate planning and assessment requirements

3.2.15 MA&D The ES should include a description and assessment (where relevant) of the

likely significant effects resulting from accidents and disasters applicable to

the Proposed Development. The Applicant should make use of appropriate

guidance (e.g. that referenced in the Health and Safety Executives (HSE)

Annex to Advice Note 11) to better understand the likelihood of an

occurrence and the Proposed Development’s susceptibility to potential major

accidents and hazards. The description and assessment should consider the

vulnerability of the Proposed Development to a potential accident or disaster

and also the Proposed Development’s potential to cause an accident or

disaster. The assessment should specifically assess significant effects

resulting from the risks to human health, cultural heritage or the

environment. Any measures that will be employed to prevent and control

significant effects should be presented in the ES.

Refer to Chapter 19 Major Accidents and Disasters of

Volume 1 of this PEIR.

Page 21 of 24






3.2.16 MA&D Relevant information available and obtained through risk assessments

pursuant to European Union legislation such as Directive 2012/18/EU of the

European Parliament and of the Council or Council Directive

2009/71/Euratom or relevant assessments carried out pursuant to national

legislation may be used for this purpose provided that the requirements of

this Directive are met. Where appropriate, this description should include

measures envisaged to prevent or mitigate the significant adverse effects of

such events on the environment and details of the preparedness for and

proposed response to such emergencies.


3.2.17 Climate change The ES should include a description and assessment (where relevant) of the

likely significant effects the Proposed Development has on climate (for

example having regard to the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas

emissions) and the vulnerability of the project to climate change. Where

relevant, the ES should describe and assess the adaptive capacity that has

been incorporated into the design of the Proposed Development. This may

include, for example, alternative measures such as changes in the use of

materials or construction and design techniques that will be more resilient to

risks from climate change.

Refer to Chapter 7 Climate Change and Chapter 8

Greenhouse Gases of Volume 1 of this PEIR.

3.2.18 Transboundary Schedule 4 Part 5 of the EIA Regulations requires a description of the likely

significant transboundary effects to be provided in an ES.


3.2.19 Transboundary The Scoping Report concludes that the Proposed Development is not likely

to have significant effects on another European Economic Area (EEA) State

and proposes that transboundary effects do not need to be considered within

the ES. The Inspectorate notes the Applicant’s conclusion in the Scoping

Report; however, recommends that for the avoidance of doubt the ES details

and justifies this conclusion.

The Transboundary Screening provided by the Planning

Inspectorate has been included in Appendix 4-1 of

Volume 2 of this PEIR. The Inspectorate concluded

based on the information provided in the EIA Scoping

Report that the Proposed Development is not likely to

have significant effects on the environment in another

EEA State.

3.2.20 References A reference list detailing the sources used for the descriptions and

assessments must be included in the ES.


Page 22 of 24






3.3.1 Confidentiality In some circumstances it will be appropriate for information to be kept

confidential. In particular, this may relate to information about the presence

and locations of rare or sensitive species such as badgers, rare birds and

plants where disturbance, damage, persecution or commercial exploitation

may result from publication of the information. Where documents are

intended to remain confidential the Applicant should provide these as

separate paper and electronic documents with their confidential nature

clearly indicated in the title and watermarked as such on each page. The

information should not be incorporated within other documents that are

intended for publication or which the Inspectorate would be required to

disclose under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.


4.1.1-4.1.12 Air Quality See Chapter 5 Air Quality of this PEIR.

4.2.14.2.13 Traffic and

Transportation

See Chapter 6 Traffic and Transportation of this

PEIR.

4.3.1-4.3.5 Climate Change See Chapter 7 Climate Change of this PEIR.

4.4.1-4.4.7 Greenhouse

Gases

See Chapter 8 Greenhouse Gases of this PEIR.

4.5.1-

4.5.15

Noise and

Vibration

See Chapter 9 Noise and Vibration of this PEIR.

4.6.1-4.6.9 Soils and Geology See Chapter 10 Soils and Geology of this PEIR.

4.7.1-

4.7.14

Water Resources See Chapter 11 Water Resources of this PEIR.

4.8.1-4.8.9 Waste and

Resources

See Chapter 12 Waste and Resources of this PEIR.

4.9.1-4.9.8 Economics and

Employment

See Chapter 13 Economics and Employment of this

PEIR.

4.10.1-

4.10.13

Health and

Community

See Chapter 14 Health and Community of this PEIR.

4.11.1-

4.11.6

Agricultural Land

Quality and Farm

Holdings

See Chapter 15 Agricultural Land Quality and Farm

Holdings of this PEIR.

Page 23 of 24






4.12.1-

4.12.13

Biodiversity See Chapter 16 Biodiversity of this PEIR.

4.13.1-

14.13.21

Landscape and

Visual

See Chapter 17 Landscape and Visual of this PEIR.

4.14.1-

4.14.10

Cultural Heritage See Chapter 18 Cultural Heritage of this PEIR.

4.15.1-

4.15.18

Major Accidents

and Disasters

See Chapter 19 Major Accidents and Disasters of this

PEIR.

4.16.1-

4.16.11

In-combination

and Cumulative

Effects

See Chapter 20 In-combination and Cumulative

Effects Assessment of this PEIR.

Page 24 of 24

Documents

Appendix 1-2 EIA Scoping Opinion Preliminary Response · Regulation 6(2)(a) of the EIA Regulations, the Proposed Development is EIA development. No response required. 1.1.5 General